Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Dauric » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:28 am UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:According to a CNN story I just scanned, the shooter told the cops he was the Joker. If true....


It's not. Aurora police has refused to confirm anything about motive. The only thing they've confirmed that the shooter said was about the presence of explosives in the apartment.

All law enforcement agencies have backed away from the apartment until tomorrow.

Arapahoe County has an active death penalty, and the current DA is likely to pursue a death penalty in this case. Her term is up in November.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby K-R » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:55 am UTC


Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Aetius » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:39 am UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:According to a CNN story I just scanned, the shooter told the cops he was the Joker. If true, it's amazingly unsurprising.


I read the same article, seems highly unlikely to be true. First because the police haven't released any information about motive or anything along those lines yet, and second because the article said he dyed his hair red, when the joker's hair is green. Really seems like rumor mill type nonsense and not a credible report.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Thesh » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:03 am UTC

I'm assuming the photo on every media outlet is his mugshot. If that's the case, his hair is definitely not red. Someone probably did a google image search for his name and someone with red hair came up; after that, the interwebs engages in a game of telephone.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:04 am UTC

No, it's not his mugshot; I remember reading that the police have not released that yet.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Dauric » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:18 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:No, it's not his mugshot; I remember reading that the police have not released that yet.


This is correct. The picture that is in the media is the student ID picture released by University of Colorado.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Jave D » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:37 am UTC

Ah, the media. There is no event or situation so objectively horrifying enough that the media won't put a spin on it. According to some pages I've had the extreme displeasure of seeing just now (and won't link to), the shooter was a Democrat, an Occupy Wall Street Marxist revolutionary brainwashed by liberal college professors.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Xeio » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:56 am UTC


User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:14 am UTC

Xeio wrote:*Coughs*


When the Onion skirts the line between satire and just saying what other media are too...professional to say, I feel a weird sense of sadness.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby broken_escalator » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:24 am UTC

Hits you right in the reality. :(

Also, I really hope some media starts clearing this 'Joker' nonsense. Or at least giving actual, factual evidence for it. I won't hold my breath though.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3725
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:56 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Thesh wrote:In an unsurprising turn of events, the blame game is well under way. The following are reportedly to blame:

NRA
Gun Control
Hollywood
Violent Video Games
Liberals
Tea Party
Atheism

I really need to ignore comments on news sites.


A Republican Congressperson has said the blame is due to attacks on Judeo-Christian belief systems in recent years. He was also disappointed that nobody in the theatre had the good sense to have brought a gun with them so they could shoot the shooter.



Not to drag out the discussion of firearms any, but the theater was posted with a 'no-guns' sign as it is Cinemark's policy not to allow firearms other than those carried by law enforcement.
A little additional digging indicates that Aurora may have laws/regulations that preempt Colorado's concealed-carry laws, disallowing anyone, including licensed individuals from carrying concealed firearms within the municipality.


On the media coverage, there's this.

Haven't really been watching the news myself (I don't watch much T.V. anyway, get most of my news from Reddit these days), but I assume it's a valid criticism of the coverage of this incident, and I find it interesting anyway, the advice gels with what I know of terrorist events and other attention-seeking crimes in that paying attention to them encourages copy-cats.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Aikanaro » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:32 pm UTC

So here's the other bit that confuses me: I checked up the site where he supposedly got the vest, etc., but it said you needed to be in law enforcement or government employ, etc., to be able to purchase the plates that sit in the armor and actually stop the bullets. How the hell did he get his hands on the plates, then, if he's not cleared for them? I mean, really, where/how the hell does the average joe legally get his hands on an actual bulletproof vest and/or riot armor?
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Dauric » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:38 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:So here's the other bit that confuses me: I checked up the site where he supposedly got the vest, etc., but it said you needed to be in law enforcement or government employ, etc., to be able to purchase the plates that sit in the armor and actually stop the bullets. How the hell did he get his hands on the plates, then, if he's not cleared for them? I mean, really, where/how the hell does the average joe legally get his hands on an actual bulletproof vest and/or riot armor?


The plates stop high-velocity rifle rounds. The kevlar vest without the plates can stop low-velocity handgun rounds without the plates. There's no information that he had the trauma plates, just the vest.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

PerchloricAcid
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:09 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby PerchloricAcid » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:24 pm UTC

In San Diego, a woman contacted by ABC News told reporters that she was Holmes’s mother. She said she had awoken unaware of the massacre and had not yet been contacted by authorities, but immediately expressed concern to ABC that her son may have been involved.

“You have the right person,” she said. “I need to call the police. . . . I need to fly out to Colorado.”

This kinda caught my attention (source).

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Impeach » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:33 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:
Impeach wrote:Do you really think so? I thought this was a tragic example of how humans sometimes do terrible things.


All the guns were bought legally within a two month span, he had no criminal record and no history of mental illness. Guns are significantly more deadly than other easily obtained weapons, and has a much lower skill-barrier than other weapons that could do comparable damage like a small bomb. Although I do agree that this a terrible thing that humans do to each other, and we can't prevent that, we can certainly take measures to limit the severity of these events. The plan of allowing the mass manufacture of high precision firearms for popular consumption has failed abysmally and I am deeply angry that after another mindless slaughter we will not see any serious challenges to this idea. They built mass murder directly into a core piece of the legal structure. I'm enraged by this shooting, and I'm enraged by the "right" to bear arms that allows so much more unnecessary suffering and grief.


They built mass murder directly into a core piece if the legal structure? What.... What the hell are you talking about? Murder is illegal. Care to show me this 'mass murder' clause? The purpose of the second amendment is not to allow mass murder. Only a psychotic humanoid would think that.

So, you think that the second amendment has failed? How has it failed? What specific conditions has it failed to create? Have you ever challenged that belief by looking up the relevant statistics? Well, if you had, you would know that far more violent crimes are prevented every year by citizens with personal firearms, that committed. How is this a failure?

What anyone with a basic knowledge of early american history knows is that the second amendment was put into the constitution to ensure that the citizens, not the government, of this country would never lose the means to defend their freedom from whatever threatened it. The federalist papers are full of warnings against allowing government to gain a monopoly of power. If the historic cycles of the past thousands of years were to miraculously begin to repeat themselves and the sovereignty of this country were to be challenged, we need to be able to challenge back. Who can argue that the governments of the past and present make nasty little incidents like this hardly seem like mass murder, when compared to THEIR mass murder. Confrontations between people suck but confrontations between government are on a different scale. That is the purpose of the second amendment, to keep the citizens living within our borders safe from confrontations on that scale. Right now, if an army were to attempt to occupy this country or if the clearly rouge federal government tried to instill martial law, it would fail miserably. The citizens would defend themselves with more firearms that any army possesses. Hence, the second amendment HAS worked, not even counting the fact that people are kept safe on an individual level as well.

Besides, we can't possibly hope to eliminate all crime and all violence. It's absolutely impossible. Shit has always happened, shit till happens, and shit will happen until the end of time. I for one would rather deal with the possibility that shit will happen to be, then deal with the consequences of allowing a clearly rogue government to remove my right to defend myself. Especially in the light of the NDAA.

Edit: If you are legitimately interested in politics and are actually concerned with any of it, then hopefully you know what the NDAA is. If not, look it up and maybe to will see where some of my concern comes from. Were not talking about a petty issue here, this is serious stuff and I derive my opinion out of my instincts for self preservation. So far, the second amendment has made us immune to the purportedly 'humanitarian' and the openly violent occupations that have turned so many countries into rubble. I am afraid that if we remove this immunity, the same government that put japenese americans into concentration camps and whose current administration has passed an executive order legalizing the indefinite detention of american citizens without a trial or even an accusation, may prove to be less than %100 altruistic.

If you really think that this protection is not worth the possibility that maybe some of the criminals who use guns in their crimes would not have been able to get it from one of the people decided to take advantage of the black market for guns, then I will defend to the death your right to push for a constitutional amendment. Abandoning the rule of law and allowing a gun ban that is enforced in direct violation our rights which, whether or not you agree, are still built into the structure of our laws, will essentially give free reign to our government to change this structure without going through the legal channels. Please don't do this.
Last edited by Impeach on Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Dauric » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:45 pm UTC

First stage of bomb defusing has been completed to defeat the tripwires set to anyone entering the room. Work on continuing to defuse the explosives to make the apartment safe is expected to continue to 7:00 pm local time, and then resume tomorrow. The police are hoping to allow residents back in to their homes in the next few days, however they're still discovering what all was set up in the apartment so they don't have any firm timetable.

James E. Holmes is scheduled to be in court Monday.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Jave D » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:So, you think that the second amendment has failed? How has it failed? What specific conditions has it failed to create? Have you ever challenged that belief by looking up the relevant statistics? Well, if you had, you would know that far more violent crimes are prevented every year by citizens with personal firearms, that committed. How is this a failure?
...
Right now, if an army were to attempt to occupy this country or if the clearly rouge federal government tried to instill martial law, it would fail miserably. The citizens would defend themselves with more firearms that any army possesses. Hence, the second amendment HAS worked, not even counting the fact that people are kept safe on an individual level as well.
...
Besides, we can't possibly hope to eliminate all crime and all violence. It's absolutely impossible. Shit has always happened, shit till happens, and shit will happen until the end of time. I for one would rather deal with the possibility that shit will happen to be, then deal with the consequences of allowing a clearly rogue government to remove my right to defend myself.


I think your tendency to at once laud and praise the success of the government (in the form of the second amendment) as well as harp on about the "clearly rogue government" has an overall confusing and distorted message which is hard to take seriously even without the other tiresome lines you haul out after it.

I mean, it's all very well and good for you to declare how stoically you accept "shit will happen" to you when with regards to this act, it hasn't. You haven't been gunned down in a movie theater. I would assume none of your family has either. It's a meaningless statement. And ranting with barely-concealed frothing anger about the evil government trying to steal your right to defend yourself, while coldly, casually dismissing mass murders because well, they're a price you'll gladly have other people pay with their lives in order for you to (theoretically) be able to defend yourself is, in the context of this discussion, pretty damn tasteless.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Impeach » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:48 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:I think your tendency to at once laud and praise the success of the government (in the form of the second amendment) as well as harp on about the "clearly rogue government" has an overall confusing and distorted message which is hard to take seriously even without the other tiresome lines you haul out after it.


I don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Whatever it is about your logic that lead you to say this is obviously fucked. You are extrapolating or projecting or doing something but you sure aren't paying attention.

[/quote]I mean, it's all very well and good for you to declare how stoically you accept "shit will happen" to you when with regards to this act, it hasn't. You haven't been gunned down in a movie theater. I would assume none of your family has either. It's a meaningless statement. And ranting with barely-concealed frothing anger about the evil government trying to steal your right to defend yourself, while coldly, casually dismissing mass murders because well, they're a price you'll gladly have other people pay with their lives in order for you to (theoretically) be able to defend yourself is, in the context of this discussion, pretty damn tasteless.[/quote]

First of all, I am not ranting with barely concealed frothing anger. I am not ranting, my anger is not frothing, and I made no effort to conceal it because it didn't factor into my argument. But then, why shouldn't I be angry? Are you so egocentric that you think I making my choice in the context of YOUR life? I worry that my basic rights, which I do not use improperly, will be taken away from me in I way I have no control over. Can't you see that that is real for me? Why are you judging me so harshly for that? You are trying to take away my right one of a free societies most important tools and all you can come up with is that sadistic criminals misuse them? You made no attempt to actually look at what I was saying, you mentioned nothing about the fact that guns save more people from violent crimes than they cause, you extrapolated and deluded yourself to the point where your opening statement was about as true as 1=2, accused me of being callous and apathetic about the mass murders (I'm to lazy to go back and read but the exact gist of what I said is "this was horribly tragedy and we all must take great efforts to make sure it doesn't happen," and you call me tasteless? Everyone's got their own opinion on what taste is. For example, I think it is tasteless to tell someone that they are a bad person because they do not want their rights removed only by force just because your vision of government is different from theirs. This isn't about taste though, so "it's a meaningless statement," this is about logic, history, and an IQ greater than 50. If you have something that you think might influence what I think about the second amendment, by all means share it because what else is a forum like this for? If all you want to do is fling personal insults then warn be before hand so I know not to read it.

Oh and please use less adjectives.
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:53 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:I worry that my basic rights, which I do not use improperly, will be taken away from me in I way I have no control over. Can't you see that that is real for me? Why are you judging me so harshly for that? You are trying to take away my right one of a free societies most important tools and all you can come up with is that sadistic criminals misuse them?
I don't think you're angry, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to claim I know how this or anything else makes you feel. That being said, I have to ask: Is your right to firearms a crucial one to your personal happiness? In what way do you feel your right to firearms (fettered or unfettered) improves your quality of life? Is there a reason I should care about this right just as much as I do the right to free speech, or the right against wrongful imprisonment?

EDIT: I'm assuming you have a better reason than 'Because we might have to form a militia to repel some army some day!', by the way.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:57 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Garm » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:55 pm UTC

What's interesting to me about tragedies like this are how people use them as a source of confirmation bias. If you're a staunch defender of concealed carry than it's obvious that an attendee with a gun could have limited the bloodshed. If you're invested in gun control laws than this is a pretty big data point for limiting access to weapons.

I'm kinda in-between on the two issues. For me, this has confirmed that our media still doesn't know what to do when something like this happens (best coverage I heard was on the local sports radio station where one of the victims worked). Also, Louis Gohmert is a sack of shit and Alex Jones is an execrable excuse for a human being. The whole thing is horrible and tragic and I'm not really sure how any one thing could have prevented the event.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:59 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Also, Louis Gohmert is a sack of shit and Alex Jones is an execrable excuse for a human being. The whole thing is horrible and tragic and I'm not really sure how any one thing could have prevented the event.
Yes, if there's two things we as a nation can all agree on, it's that this was tragic and that Alex Jones is an obnoxious twit.

Impeach
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Impeach » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:03 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:I worry that my basic rights, which I do not use improperly, will be taken away from me in I way I have no control over. Can't you see that that is real for me? Why are you judging me so harshly for that? You are trying to take away my right one of a free societies most important tools and all you can come up with is that sadistic criminals misuse them?
I don't think you're angry, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to claim I know how this or anything else makes you feel. That being said, I have to ask: Is your right to firearms a crucial one to your personal happiness? In what way do you feel your right to firearms (fettered or unfettered) improves your quality of life? Is there a reason I should care about this right just as much as I do the right to free speech, or the right against wrongful imprisonment?

I'm assuming you have a better reason than 'Because we might have to form a militia to repel some army some day!', by the way.


Well, the simple act of owning a firearm obviously doesn't make people automatically happier but that's not the point. Guns aren't just toys to amuse simple-minded and shallow people, they are tools of security. If I have a concealed carry permit, I can be sure that I will not be kidnapped or murdered. Again, this is far more common than guns being used in crime.

I don't feel that I should have to justify my rights. We may differ (or in the end me might not) on whether or not it is a right to own a personal firearm but it makes no difference what I plan to get out of my rights. The whole point is that your rights cannot be challenged and if they are, you can strait up KILL whoever is trying to remove them. Dictators, the ones who are usually the culprits where rights are attacked, will have a pretty hard time controlling a populace that is armed to the teeth.

As for why you should care about this right as much as freedom of speech and safety against unlawful arrest, at the end of the day, how do you think you retain these rights? If you think that these rights do not need protection, you are mistaken. If I am unlawfully arrested, it happened and whether or not it is legal, my rights were violated. The struggle here is not to get people to verbally agree that these are rights, but to make sure that is how things really work. I should not have to really on a federal government to ensure that this doesn't happen to me. The whole point of a right is that you don't have to ask anyone. You don't need permission to exercise these rights. Someone attempts to keep you from exercising the right to not be indefinitely detained without a trial, you justifiably kill them.

I mentioned earlier about the NDAA, which is an executive order signed early this January. Executive orders are issued by the executive branch without any congressional oversight or input from the courts. This particular executive order says that American citizens, if suspected to be a domestic threat, can be taken by force, detained indefinitely and never have to be given a free trial or even told what they are being accused of. This demonstrates why citizens may very well have to take the enforcement of their rights into their own hands and that is why I support the right to bear arms. It has nothing to do with organizing a militia against foreign invasion, it's just an added bonus that the hundreds of millions of guns in this country would scare the shit out of anyone who even thought about invading.

The Great Hippo wrote:
Garm wrote:Also, Louis Gohmert is a sack of shit and Alex Jones is an execrable excuse for a human being. The whole thing is horrible and tragic and I'm not really sure how any one thing could have prevented the event.
Yes, if there's two things we as a nation can all agree on, it's that this was tragic and that Alex Jones is an obnoxious twit.


Oh, come now. Obnoxious twit? Increasingly so. Journalist with some unparalleled deficiencies? Absolutely. Calling him a shit human being? I just don't see it. We need more people like him. When the media fails to make a fuss when our defense secretary tells congress flat out that the authority to go to war is granted by the UN and NATO instead of the congress, stating that he will go to these foreign powers for permission and 'inform' congress of his decision, Alex Jones puts a video of this treasonous behavior on his website. When the president orders the assassination of an american citizen without bringing that person to trial, infowars is where you here about it. I don't believe every conclusion he makes, I decide for myself, but his is the only major news source that reports a lot of this stuff. Ain't no CNN anchor gonna tell you about the armed occupation of Harden, Montana by national criminal and his gang of armed mercenaries with their tricked out mercedes, dawning the logo "American Police Force." Accusations of mental instability aside, what moral objection do you to have with AJ?
doogly wrote:Silly France, you can't just make up your own definitions for what fundamental human rights are, those are self evident and endowed within humanity by our creator god. Listen to America on this one, we got this shit on lock.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:54 pm UTC

Impeach wrote:I don't feel that I should have to justify my rights.
I've decided that I have a right to all your money. Do you feel as if that right requires justification? If not, would you prefer to pay me with a check, or in cash?

Of course we need to justify our rights. Rights exist because they leave us better off. When rights don't leave us better off, we change them, get rid of them, or make new ones. Just as one example: Women didn't have the right to vote in the US. This turned out to be a bad move, so the US expanded voting rights. Another example: At some point, we decided no one had a right to sell certain types of alcohol. Eventually, we couldn't justify this, so we got rid of that right.

This is how rights work. If they're good, we keep them. If they're bad, we dump them. So...
Impeach wrote:We may differ (or in the end me might not) on whether or not it is a right to own a personal firearm but it makes no difference what I plan to get out of my rights. The whole point is that your rights cannot be challenged and if they are, you can strait up KILL whoever is trying to remove them. Dictators, the ones who are usually the culprits where rights are attacked, will have a pretty hard time controlling a populace that is armed to the teeth.
Are you sincerely afraid of a dictator rising in the US?
Impeach wrote:As for why you should care about this right as much as freedom of speech and safety against unlawful arrest, at the end of the day, how do you think you retain these rights? If you think that these rights do not need protection, you are mistaken. If I am unlawfully arrested, it happened and whether or not it is legal, my rights were violated. The struggle here is not to get people to verbally agree that these are rights, but to make sure that is how things really work. I should not have to really on a federal government to ensure that this doesn't happen to me. The whole point of a right is that you don't have to ask anyone. You don't need permission to exercise these rights. Someone attempts to keep you from exercising the right to not be indefinitely detained without a trial, you justifiably kill them.
Does having a gun somehow protect you from being unlawfully arrested? If you use a gun to resist an unlawful arrest, how do you think that will work out for you? Do you think the end result will be positive for you?
Impeach wrote:I mentioned earlier about the NDAA, which is an executive order signed early this January. Executive orders are issued by the executive branch without any congressional oversight or input from the courts. This particular executive order says that American citizens, if suspected to be a domestic threat, can be taken by force, detained indefinitely and never have to be given a free trial or even told what they are being accused of. This demonstrates why citizens may very well have to take the enforcement of their rights into their own hands and that is why I support the right to bear arms. It has nothing to do with organizing a militia against foreign invasion, it's just an added bonus that the hundreds of millions of guns in this country would scare the shit out of anyone who even thought about invading.
Do you think that having a gun will somehow protect you if the US government decided to break into your home, arrest you, and take you away to never be seen again?

Assuming you don't live in a compound surrounded by armed and trained militia willing to die protecting you.
Impeach wrote:Accusations of mental instability aside, what moral objection do you to have with AJ?
If he discovers sincerely troubling decisions made by the government, it won't matter, because it's lost in the haze of nonsense he's constantly spewing. He actually makes it harder to find out what bad things the government is up to--because if he says it, people assume it's nonsense (because 99% of it probably is).

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Garm » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:32 am UTC

Alex Jones is a terrible drain on humanity because he does things like talk about how Obama orchestrated the shooting in Aurora. Blaming video games, lax gun control, lack of concealed carriers in the audience, or what have you just makes you kind of a twit. Being Alex Jones takes it to another level.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:36 am UTC

Garm wrote:Alex Jones is a terrible drain on humanity because he does things like talk about how Obama orchestrated the shooting in Aurora. Blaming video games, lax gun control, lack of concealed carriers in the audience, or what have you just makes you kind of a twit. Being Alex Jones takes it to another level.
And I think of it as a shame in the same way I think Scientology's stance on psychiatry is a shame1--of course I don't trust the government, but whenever you say that, people think you listen to Alex Jones. Fuck, no.


1I'm sure there's some good stuff in psychiatry, I just think it's a field that deserves some healthy suspicion, and thanks to Scientology, it's sometimes hard to express that without sounding like I care about Thetans.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:42 am UTC

Look, Obama has done some pretty terrible things (all Presidents have, it's practically part of the job description). Causing the massacre was not one of them.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Lucrece » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:50 am UTC

I have no problems with unencumbered concealed carry laws, for a registered handgun. That a regular citizen can easily obtain an assault rifle and bulletproof vests, however, is horrendous. If you want to go hunting, laws could allow for weapon leasing, with people paying a monthly fee at the weapon storage and use of the weapons under supervision. It's absurd how a guy like this was easily able to obtain a little collection of warfare tools that made his victims stand no chance.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Bassoon » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:00 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:I don't feel that I should have to justify my rights.
I've decided that I have a right to all your money. Do you feel as if that right requires justification? If not, would you prefer to pay me with a check, or in cash?

Of course we need to justify our rights. Rights exist because they leave us better off. When rights don't leave us better off, we change them, get rid of them, or make new ones. Just as one example: Women didn't have the right to vote in the US. This turned out to be a bad move, so the US expanded voting rights. Another example: At some point, we decided no one had a right to sell certain types of alcohol. Eventually, we couldn't justify this, so we got rid of that right.

This is how rights work. If they're good, we keep them. If they're bad, we dump them.

*snip*


Your claiming the "right" to Impeach's money is false, because only you say you have that right. The Bill of Rights, however, gives all American citizens the rights enumerated in it, and the reason everybody gets those rights is because of the social contract we call government, which is represented in America by its constitution. You can't just arbitrarily give yourself rights, or take away the rights of others. The fact of the matter is that you saying you have a right to Impeach's money means nothing, because you have no power to back it up, and society has not agreed that you have that right. Rights are conferred upon members of society if the members of the society agree to the social contract that the society is run by. Again, this is the constitution in America, and it pretty clearly lays out the citizen's right to bear arms:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While that is certainly interpreted in many ways, the fact that it is in the constitution is justification enough. It's a protection citizens are ensured by the government. It would take a lot of change and effort in America to just "dump" the Second Amendment, and frankly, it wouldn't happen. Ever, I'd be willing to bet. People get really worried when you try to fuck with the Bill of Rights, because you know, it's the Bill of Goddamned Rights. By and large, people accept the Second Amendment, and its various implementations, and what they do not accept is a complete redaction of the Second Amendment from the constitution, because that takes away both the right to a well-regulated Militia, and the right to personally own and operate a firearm. Whether the guns should be registered or tagged, or the owners catalogued and trained is completely beside the point. The right's presence in the constitution is enough to justify the right's existence, because the constitution is a social contract that you must agree to in order to operate in our society. If the Second Amendment was really such a problem, it would have been up for removal a long time ago, and would a hot-topic debate, but it's not. The debate is how the Second Amendment is interpreted, not whether it needs to be there at all. It's how we're to implement it, either with tighter gun control or laxer gun control.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby You, sir, name? » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:26 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:I have no problems with unencumbered concealed carry laws, for a registered handgun. That a regular citizen can easily obtain an assault rifle and bulletproof vests, however, is horrendous. If you want to go hunting, laws could allow for weapon leasing, with people paying a monthly fee at the weapon storage and use of the weapons under supervision. It's absurd how a guy like this was easily able to obtain a little collection of warfare tools that made his victims stand no chance.


I don't see a problem with having hunting rifles around. Except assault rifles are not hunting rifles. I don't know where to begin to speculate what you're hunting when you legitmately need that type of hardware. Some sort of escaped Soviet armored attack bears?

Anyway, Holmes ... I don't know. I think what confuses me the most is how young he is. He's younger than me!
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Dauric » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:45 pm UTC

As much as I'd rather not engage on the gun control debate here's my take at the moment:

The devices thrown in the theater -may- have been homemade pepper-spray bombs. Aurora police have not confirmed anything beyond "devices", where they have confirmed the models of firearms carried. We know that he loaded his apartment with boobytraps and explosives.

Guns are a lazy yet sexy way to get firepower. This particular case if James Holmes wanted to cause damage without access to firearms its entirely possible that he could have cooked up some other means, possibly involving toxic chemical mixes or homemade explosives.

I'm -not- saying that the availability of guns saved lives by catering to lazyness. What I am saying is that I sincerely doubt that any level of gun control would have averted the tragedy, it would have at best changed the nature of the attack and I'm not sure that changing the nature of the attack would have had preferable outcomes.

Gun control is a sexy yet lazy topic to bring up in these cases, and until we know more about Holmes engineering ability with the devices in his apartment it's a distraction to the more difficult topic of treating mental health issues.

There's statements that suggest James's mother knew that he was in turmoil, he had attended two colleges in rapid succession and was in the process of being removed from University of Colorado. In these events may have been clues to someone suffering and coming closer to doing harm to others, though most of these details are probably not going to be seen in public until the trial for us jackasses on the internet to evaluate. I believe a vastly more productive line of inquiry in to this event is the state of mental health in the U.S. which would have impact on every shooting as well as a raft of other social ills, rater than focusing on tools that hundreds of thousands possess without the vast majority of them going on murderous rampages.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:13 pm UTC

Bassoon wrote:The right's presence in the constitution is enough to justify the right's existence, because the constitution is a social contract that you must agree to in order to operate in our society.

OK, you are aware that the Constitution used to enshrine the right to trade slaves, right?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:27 pm UTC

Bassoon wrote:While that is certainly interpreted in many ways, the fact that it is in the constitution is justification enough.
We can vote to change the constitution. And we have. So obviously, no, it isn't--if something can't be justified, it might be a good idea to change it.
Bassoon wrote:If the Second Amendment was really such a problem, it would have been up for removal a long time ago, and would a hot-topic debate, but it's not.
It... is... a hot topic for debate. And even if you've set some standard by which it isn't, fine--but the lack of a controversy does not imply that an idea is still good.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:50 pm UTC

Bassoon wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:I don't feel that I should have to justify my rights.
I've decided that I have a right to all your money. Do you feel as if that right requires justification? If not, would you prefer to pay me with a check, or in cash?

Of course we need to justify our rights. Rights exist because they leave us better off. When rights don't leave us better off, we change them, get rid of them, or make new ones. Just as one example: Women didn't have the right to vote in the US. This turned out to be a bad move, so the US expanded voting rights. Another example: At some point, we decided no one had a right to sell certain types of alcohol. Eventually, we couldn't justify this, so we got rid of that right.

This is how rights work. If they're good, we keep them. If they're bad, we dump them.

*snip*


Your claiming the "right" to Impeach's money is false, because only you say you have that right. The Bill of Rights, however, gives all American citizens the rights enumerated in it, and the reason everybody gets those rights is because of the social contract we call government, which is represented in America by its constitution. You can't just arbitrarily give yourself rights, or take away the rights of others. The fact of the matter is that you saying you have a right to Impeach's money means nothing, because you have no power to back it up, and society has not agreed that you have that right. Rights are conferred upon members of society if the members of the society agree to the social contract that the society is run by. Again, this is the constitution in America, and it pretty clearly lays out the citizen's right to bear arms:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While that is certainly interpreted in many ways, the fact that it is in the constitution is justification enough. It's a protection citizens are ensured by the government. It would take a lot of change and effort in America to just "dump" the Second Amendment, and frankly, it wouldn't happen. Ever, I'd be willing to bet. People get really worried when you try to fuck with the Bill of Rights, because you know, it's the Bill of Goddamned Rights. By and large, people accept the Second Amendment, and its various implementations, and what they do not accept is a complete redaction of the Second Amendment from the constitution, because that takes away both the right to a well-regulated Militia, and the right to personally own and operate a firearm. Whether the guns should be registered or tagged, or the owners catalogued and trained is completely beside the point. The right's presence in the constitution is enough to justify the right's existence, because the constitution is a social contract that you must agree to in order to operate in our society. If the Second Amendment was really such a problem, it would have been up for removal a long time ago, and would a hot-topic debate, but it's not. The debate is how the Second Amendment is interpreted, not whether it needs to be there at all. It's how we're to implement it, either with tighter gun control or laxer gun control.


Wait, I think you completely missed The Great Hippo's point. The Constitution (including the bill of rights) has been changed 27 times since its inception. When we start talking about changing the Constitution, saying "But rights are defined in the Constitution" leads to a circular argument. Of course we know that rights are in the constitution, thats the point. But Hippo's point is that we can change those rights.

If you want to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, go on and do so. But I think its a bit silly to just assume that rights in the Constitution are some sort of holy word. Otherwise, slaves would still be worth only 3/5ths of a vote right now and Congress would still be able to give themselves pay raises in the middle of session.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Gelsamel » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:I believe a vastly more productive line of inquiry in to this event is the state of mental health in the U.S. which would have impact on every shooting as well as a raft of other social ills, rater than focusing on tools that hundreds of thousands possess without the vast majority of them going on murderous rampages.


I absolutely agree. But one should note that massacres like this, while abhorrent, are just a drop in the ocean statistically. So another good idea for lowering gun violence and violent crime in general is to drop that whole war on drugs thing.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
PatrickRsGhost
Posts: 2278
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:43 pm UTC
Location: ZZ9PluralZAlpha
Contact:

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby PatrickRsGhost » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:11 pm UTC

On a lighter note, there is currently a movement on Facebook and Twitter to get Christian Bale, the actor who played Batman in the most recent installments, to visit the hospitals in the area, mainly to visit the children injured in the shooting. I think it should be taken to the next level: Have the entire cast (main characters) visit the hospitals, either in full costume, or as themselves. Maybe also once the theater reopens, have a free private screening for the survivors.
PRG

An important message for you:

010000100110010100100000011100110
111010101110010011001010010000001
110100011011110010000001100101011
000010111010000100000011110010110
111101110101011100100010000001100
010011000010110001101101111011011
1000101110

User avatar
brakos82
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:06 am UTC
Location: My happy place :)

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby brakos82 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

On a creepier note, I had a dream that I met the shooter and became friends with him. :shock:
I am Brakos, and I may or may not approve this message.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:24 pm UTC

On a sexier note, YOUR MOM.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Dauric » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:43 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
Dauric wrote:I believe a vastly more productive line of inquiry in to this event is the state of mental health in the U.S. which would have impact on every shooting as well as a raft of other social ills, rater than focusing on tools that hundreds of thousands possess without the vast majority of them going on murderous rampages.


I absolutely agree. But one should note that massacres like this, while abhorrent, are just a drop in the ocean statistically. So another good idea for lowering gun violence and violent crime in general is to drop that whole war on drugs thing.


I heartily agree with emphasis on the underlined. The War on Drugs is certainly a detrimental policy, but it is a bit OT for this thread.

Last night Aurora Police and FBI agents finished clearing the explosives from the apartment and have given the all clear for the residents in the surrounding buildings. The building where Mr. Holmes lived is still locked down while evidence is being gathered. Explosives and unidentified chemicals had been transported to a nearby field and detonated.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby Garm » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:16 pm UTC

Here's an interesting perspective about the "drop in the bucket" idea: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/20/why_arent_there_more_auroras/

It's by Paul Campos, a law prof at CU Boulder. TL;DR version: Why aren't there more events like this?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
buddy431
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Twelve killed by gunman in Denver movie theatre

Postby buddy431 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:35 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Guns are a lazy yet sexy way to get firepower. This particular case if James Holmes wanted to cause damage without access to firearms its entirely possible that he could have cooked up some other means, possibly involving toxic chemical mixes or homemade explosives.

I'm -not- saying that the availability of guns saved lives by catering to lazyness. What I am saying is that I sincerely doubt that any level of gun control would have averted the tragedy, it would have at best changed the nature of the attack and I'm not sure that changing the nature of the attack would have had preferable outcomes.

Gun control is a sexy yet lazy topic to bring up in these cases, and until we know more about Holmes engineering ability with the devices in his apartment it's a distraction to the more difficult topic of treating mental health issues.


I disagree. It wasn't his bombs or other devices that killed 12 people and injured 50, it was his assault rifle. At Columbine, for all the bombs and other devices that were made, it was the guns that killed and injured people. If we look at the Utoeya massacre from a year ago, the perpetrator spent weeks making a car bomb, but in the end it was a hunting rifle that claimed most of his victims.

Guns are an easily available, easily used tool to cause death and severe injury. Bombs (especially living in a country without easy access to military grade munitions, unlike, say, Iraq) require technical knowledge, time, and hard-to-obtain materials to make (especially after the Oklahoma City bombing).

Sure, there will always be people who wish to cause damage. What do they do in societies without easy access to firearms? There's the Osaka school massacre (8 children killed with a knife), and the Akihabara massacre: 3 killed with an automobile and 4 with a knife. Firearms are far and away the easiest way to kill lots of people by a lone, untrained nutcase.

Why isn't gun control a fair topic to discus when events like these happen? It was events like these that led to the severe restrictions on firearms in the UK today, and while some people might disagree with these types of policies, they have largely been effective in preventing this type of violence.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DaBigCheez, Dauric, Pfhorrest, sardia and 19 guests